99%... 1%... Why Not 100%?

Fairfield County-based VolunteerSquare.com takes a look at the "Occupy Darien" movement and how you can make a major impact in your community - no matter what percentage you fall into.

For months, the Occupy movement has been making headlines across the nation and around the world. From New York to D.C. to San Francisco, thousands have turned out to voice their opposition to what they say is an unfair distribution of wealth and opportunity in America. Whether or not you agree with the politics behind this movement, there is no debate that the Occupiers are a force to be reckoned with. And Wednesday, the movement came to Darien’s .

We at Fairfield County-based VolunteerSquare.com are all in favor of our constitutionally protected rights to peacefully protest, assemble and speak our minds. We also love when people take an active interest in their communities. So we decided to pay a visit to the demonstration on Wednesday, not to protest but to observe and learn firsthand about the passions behind the movement.

When we arrived at the park, we found about a dozen or so people braving the rain and the chill. One protestor was holding a sign calling for government to “End the Wars. Tax the rich.” Overall, what we saw was a very civilized demonstration. In , organizer and Darien resident Margaret Rague said today’s demonstration makes sense because the town "has more Wall Street people than any other single town in the nation."

It is true that Darien is one of the more affluent communities in the area, and the nation. In fact, the public perception of Fairfield County is that the entire region, the so-called Gold Coast, is untouchable. Yet the reality is that the 2008 economic crash and subsequent economic downturn has impacted Fairfield County in a number of significant ways. The housing crisis, the turbulence on Wall Street and the close ties our region has to the financial sector have all caused a tremendous amount of upheaval for families and individuals in the form of record foreclosures and layoffs. In fact, according to the Connecticut Department of Labor, unemployment in Fairfield County for November 2011 stood at around 7.5% -- that’s about 35,000 people out of work. Statewide, the Department of Labor says about 1.7 million people are out of work.

As much as the recession has impacted the private sector, it has also taken sharp aim at local nonprofits. According to a 2009 survey conducted by the Fairfield County Community Foundation (FCCF), nearly 75 percent of Fairfield County nonprofits saw an increase in demand for assistance. On top of this, in a 2011 survey, FCCF reports 80 percent of the agencies surveyed reported an increase in the cost of doing business. 50 percent reported a drop in funding from all government sources. This squeeze on the nonprofit sector has resulted in layoffs, program cuts and dips into operating reserves.

The picture is bleak for certain, but we see a window of opportunity. Volunteer! Nonprofit agencies are in desperate need of extra pairs of hands and offering your skills to an agency in need, even if for just an hour or two a week, is an outstanding way to help your community. On top of that, for those on the job hunt, it’s a perfect way to network, keep your professional skills sharp and maybe even uncover a passion you didn’t know you had! In fact, a recent New York Times article pointed out that professional networking site LinkedIn polled its employers in September and 40 percent say they rank volunteer experience as important as paid work on a resume. 

What's more, instead of having such pronounced divisions between the so-called 99 percent and 1 percent, we think we just may be better off agreeing to all be part of the solution, the 100 percent working together to make things better for one another. It's a small gesture but one that could make a major impact. To learn more about how you can get involved giving back to your community through volunteering, visit our website, www.VolunteerSquare.com. The site is totally free for all and we have opportunities at agencies across the region for all ages and abilities.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

sebastian dangerfield January 06, 2012 at 06:35 AM
New canaan voter Again--I explained it to you. The banks send money to the Fed for free. Its a reserve requirement. Its not taxpayer money----its the bank's money. The Fed then turns around and lends it back to the banks. But--they are borrowing their own money. In any event--even if you dont accept this concept--(its true- the Fed held 889 bio dollars in the form of reserve requirements in 2008--- not taxpayer money--bank money) the net profit was 13 bio. Not 8 trillion or 16 trillion (which by the way if 8 trillion is 'close enough to 16 trillion--you have to be kidding??) Why do you want to argue a point that is not winnable. Why is the left always so afraid to admit the truth? Taxpayers did not give banks 8 trillion dollars. The fed lent 200 bio a day--something that is their role to banks. Now if you want to actually go into where the money was 'given'--we can talk about South Korea or Egypt or Israel or to the unemployed. I just am totally sick of the demogoguery and the rhetoric that exists about bankers being the receipients of all this largess. Look at General Motors--the 'main street' company that received money and still owes money. Where are the protests around them? Where are the protests about all the corruption in government? the charles rangels of this world? Where are the protests about postal workers and the billions of bailouts there? Obama and co label bankers as the bad guys-and people run with it.
sebastian dangerfield January 06, 2012 at 07:54 PM
haha tony Good one. "since been repaid"--7.7 trillion of institutions in poor shape--being repaid. When do you think the US will repay 1/2 of the debt? in the next year or 2? hahaha Come on--mr distortion, at least use your brain. this is ridiculous rhetoric that smart people should stop and consider. Wait--secret loans? Do me a favor tony, and just do 2 minutes on what the Federal reserve bank was formed to do. You can call everything 'secret' if you prefer--but if its a secret why do you know? And how can the US government give out secret loans, and the Obama administration --of which you no doubt support 100% (right?) not investigate or make an issue of? 7 trillion? hahahah. Come on man-- Is it necessary to just further lies in order to make yourself feel like a better person? I can copy and paste UFO sightings, or I can copy and paste articles that describe ghosts etc. But I honestly ask you to simply discover what the federal reserve was established to do--and then if you would kindly inform me how banks are at their low in the stock market--are laying people off and yet were able to repay 7 trillion dollars if in fact they were in terrible terrible shape (misleading at a minimum--!!! and da dum --may have been worse!!) Oh my god--where did they make 7 trillion dollars in 1 year dude? come on--i cant believe you are really going to embrace this stuff...
sebastian dangerfield January 06, 2012 at 08:13 PM
This attack on bankers is so ridiculous..... witness the 'secret' tax incentive program that malloy gave to UBS as evidence of how the poiticians berate these people--but their actions speak a different belief, Obama assassinates a US citizen overseas and the democrats say ''....... (nothing). Imagine if Bush had done that? Obama promises closing of gitmo on moral grounds--then years later --he actually broadens the scope of the philosophy behind gitmo...and the democrats say ....(silence). They had a lot to say about this type of stuff when someone else was in office---did they lose their principle? or did they change their views on human rights? Or is this just guys like Tony who carry the party load? Obama is now all hell bent on attacking bankers. Why not? Its a populist rant that seems to always appear when the going gets tough. I think most people can be think of past times when rich people have been singled out as evil and worthy of --well terrible things. When we read just total lies about bank profits and secret deals etc--i want to puke. Who are we becoming? I thought we learned lessons from past demogogy. Dont fall into this vortex of demonizing people --as a whole. Its a dangerous slippery slope.....and people like tony are dangerous when they further crap in order to achieve their agenda.. ( ie affordable housing at 35 leroy wont cost taxpayers a dime!) what a load---. agendas and goals not hampered by facts. Scary.
sebastian dangerfield January 06, 2012 at 08:15 PM
and tony i told you pretty clearly i do want to have an honest debate--and if what prevents you from having an honest debate is the fact that im using a pseudonym --i offered to clear that up if you would actually engage in honest debate.... I dont see that happenning--so --dont get hung up on my pen name. You obviously are not interested in elevating your stance--so--its pretty clear to whoever reads thse posts that you would rather focus on minatuae like a name than in stating facts. Sad.
sebastian dangerfield January 06, 2012 at 08:47 PM
Tony Thanks for your suggestion to get a life. Here is the follow up story that examines the bloomberg report.... After Bloomberg included the $7.77 trillion figure in a Nov. 28, 2011, story, some media outlets mischaracterized it as the Fed’s actual lending. The Fed, in a Dec. 6 memo accompanying a letter Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke wrote to lawmakers, called those mischaracterizations “wildly inaccurate.” $6.8 trillion -- The potential amount the Fed might have lent if “all eligible program applicants request assistance at once to the maximum permitted under the program guidelines,” according to a July 21, 2009, report by the Treasury Department’s Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. In that report, the officials monitoring the Treasury Department’s $700 billion bailout fund attempted to determine the Fed’s “total potential support” related to the financial crisis. Most of the difference between the TARP watchdog’s tally and Bloomberg’s involves one program, TALF. The inspector general attributed its $900 billion capacity to the Treasury, which was guaranteeing some of its lending. Bloomberg grouped TALF with the Fed, which created the program.
sebastian dangerfield January 06, 2012 at 08:52 PM
$1.14 trillion -- A different total for Fed lending that the GAO included in the same July 21, 2011, report. The calculation is similar to, not the same as, Bloomberg’s method of arriving at its peak lending figure. The GAO accounted for differences in loan terms by multiplying each loan amount by the number of days the loan was outstanding and then dividing by the number of days in a year. Bloomberg’s figure represents peak lending on a single day. $13 billion -- An estimate of the income that 190 banks could have made from investing the Fed loans they took. To arrive at the figure, Bloomberg found the banks’ tax-adjusted net interest margin -- that is, the difference between what they earn on loans and investments and what they pay in borrowing expenses. In those cases, Bloomberg multiplied each bank’s net interest margin by its average Fed debt during reporting periods in which they took emergency loans. Penalty Rates In its memo, the Fed said it was incorrect to write, as Bloomberg did, that banks “reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates.” “Most of the Federal Reserve’s lending facilities were priced at a penalty over normal market rates so that borrowers had economic incentives to exit the facilities as market conditions normalized, and the rates that the Federal Reserve charged on its lending programs did not provide a subsidy to borrowers,” the Fed said.
sebastian dangerfield January 06, 2012 at 08:59 PM
And this Tony (the guy with the life) is why there are basically only blog articles about the bloomberg report. The left leaning Ny Times didnt report it nor did the wall street journal. You know why Tony (the guy with the life)--because they know its hyperbole--. Ill get back to my non-life--and you go back to your ignorance and reliance on blogs for your sense of reality. haha tony.... (yes some news agencies did report that bloomberg made that determination--but Im going to go with the Federal Reserves financial statement (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/) and look at facts rather than calculate a lending facilities potential and then report that the banks actually used it--and then use multiples that are inaccurate. But-hey thats me. I prefer facts. Check out this ghost blog-and most likely you can embrace that as fact as well tony boy!! After all--whatever works!! http://paranormalstories.blogspot.com/
sebastian dangerfield January 06, 2012 at 09:12 PM
$7.77 trillion -- The amount the Fed pledged to rescue the financial industry, according to Bloomberg research that examined announced, implied or actual upper limits on lending and guarantees. This number, which represents potential commitments, not money out the door, was first published in March 2009, when it peaked. “One of the keys to understanding why we’ve avoided another Great Depression, so far, is to see how bold the Fed was in 2008 and 2009,” said Niall Ferguson, a Harvard University history professor. “That boldness consisted of a range of contingency commitments that backstopped the banking system. Just because they weren’t used doesn’t mean they weren’t important.” Tony old boy---you see? There was never 7 trillion lent...it was available --bloomberg made an inaccurate reporting. 13 bio is not even close-- Its like saying if you bought Google at 99.50 its all time low and sold at the all time high--what you could have made. I wish that would happen to me. It never has--nor do I know anyone who places a trillion dollar bet and have it go exactly 100% right. So --now that the facts have been reported, tony, and its me that needs a life--im sure i wont hear from you--until you determine how bad bankers are --in another obviously false way. again--i didnt bother to look at all these stories. Im smart enough to figure out that banks that are in bad shape cant at the same time pay back 7 trillion. Too bad you cant figure it out. Sad.
sebastian dangerfield January 06, 2012 at 09:42 PM
What should also be noted is that Bloomberg is the source for some of these corrections and acknowledgements of faulty reporting. Tony--do you read Bloomberg? Or do you not? Because the corrections are right there on that news source. Strange that you kept with the report that has been altered to reflect the true facts. I guess people with a life, prefer incorrect stories? Im learning Tony---I was never able to master foreign languages very well-and Im not good at furthering misinformation--even if it suits my agenda. I look back at Colin Powell and when he addressed the UN --shamefully. He endorsed Obama as a result of his shame for reporting bad info. Towing the party line is not admirable. Thats all I can say. Republicans are 'pro -life and 'pro death penalty. Who can figure that? democrats are for spending in good times, because we should share the wealth--and for spending in bad times-because it will help the economy.....go figure? Is there a time when these guys will ever stop spending? Being a tea party member who wants to limit spending (when we are broke) is portrayed as "crazy" and extremist. Spending 18 mio on a police station doesnt affect schools? (or it was never mentioned) yet 7 mio for senior citizens and utilizing municpal buidlings will eat into the education budget? We need to have ah in town- yet when the p and z chairman says we might get ah-the dems say its a scare tactic. Who knows what anyone thinks.
heavens sake January 06, 2012 at 09:45 PM
I respect both viewpoints of Luca and Tony, without nasty sideshow. Can we address issue from different perspective----namely financial sector , just as public sector, has gotten too large. Financial and related services sector was 9% of GDP back in 60's and now closer to 35%. Manufacturing has declined dramatically,and we cannot rely on financial sector to create many more jobs. Further the shadow banking system took on huge risks ( or diversifying risk meaning passed them on to someone else) allowing even further leveraging by governments like Greece as well as hedge funds . Meanwhile our deficits are skyrocketing to the point that a 1% rise in borrowing costs would place the nation in default,according to some economists with ongoing trade deficits only exasperating the job and overall deficit problem. Are we heading for disaster ? Most of us do not understand the inner workings of the innovative banking system but do feel something is wrong as reflected in unemployment , income disparity and wary with the results of easy credit by the Fed for too long which seemingly caused two major bubbles in the last decade.
Amo Probus January 07, 2012 at 02:24 AM
So do we all agree the system is broken and that we as a nation are bankrupt? Let's end the finger pointing and devise a solution. Do we just tax the rich more so as to increase their 'fair share?" Do we continue to let half the population pay no tax and call that 'fair?" Do we continue to dig the hole deeper by not cutting government spending? Do we bite the bullet and significantly overhaul Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare that are draining the budget? What specific ideas do you have? What specific changes do you want? and of course...why and how? What can we do to improve our prospects in Wilton where we actually have a chance to band together and insist on improving upon the way we care for citizens and contro spending...
sebastian dangerfield January 07, 2012 at 03:44 PM
"slightly less than 13 bio"--Where does it say slightly less? It is quoted as saying “Most of the Federal Reserve’s lending facilities were priced at a penalty over normal market rates so that borrowers had economic incentives to exit the facilities as market conditions normalized, and the rates that the Federal Reserve charged on its lending programs did not provide a subsidy to borrowers,” the Fed said." Tony says now:Whether the Fed secretly "pledged" to lend $6.8 Trillion or $7.4 Trillion of taxpayer money doesn't make that much difference" I mean i thought you said that the banks portrayed that they were not in trouble -but OBVIOUSLY were if they needed the money? Tony--they didnt borrow it. The simple analogy - is that you have a credit card in your wallet that you never use but has a credit limit of 50k. Bloomberg would then report that you were able to borrow a total of 18 mio dollars of bank money and reap big profits doing whatever it is you do. I mean its totally absurd. And for you to characterize 'whether they borrowed it or not....blah blah --is simply a huge effort not to simply grant the point that the numbers that have bantied about are grossly exagerated . Or as bernanke says 'wildly inaccurate.'
sebastian dangerfield January 07, 2012 at 03:59 PM
The term 'secret loans" is also simply ridiculous--I keep telling you there was nothing secret about it---its the role of the Fed to provide money to banks. Its like Tony has a job at bank and the bank is now publicly owned. And some news agency wants to know all the salaries of the bankers. So they reveal tony's salary. And a news agency describes the payments to tony as secret payments. Now it was never a secret as to if tony was getting paid. But the press likes to b hyperbolic-so it needs to make it seem that its a secret. True-no one knew the exact amount tony was making--but they knew he had a job and presumed that he was getting paid. Come on--enough of this stuff. As far as muni dealers being unscrupulous--Im sure it happens. I think when I go to the auto mechanic Im probably not paying the right amount. I dont know. But Im not an auto expert. These municipal treasurers are paid to manage the finances of their towns. They are experts. In Darien we had no such event as the Bloomberg article talks about. Why? Maybe our BOF/Treasurer understand more. Or perhaps they are not corrupt? Im not going to give any passes for the banks muni depts. Im sure they screwed some people....BUt it didnt happens every where. Only in a few places---so you would have to ask what distinguished Darien from a town who bought the stuff. And the article doesnt talk about how much money these municpalities saved on these structures prior to their blowing up.
sebastian dangerfield January 07, 2012 at 04:23 PM
A guy named Tony has a credit card in his wallet from the Federal Reserve. It has a credit limit of 100,000 dollars. That means he can borrow 36 mio a year of taxpayer money. Tony has never borrowed a dollar on that credit card. But the press reports that it had been made availaible to tony and if it had been borrowed, he would have been able to make 2% profit on the amount and therefore he could have made 720,000 dollars off of taxpayer money. Oh-but wait he didnt borrow it. But Darien Tony, says it matters little if he borrowed or didnt. Really? Arent you sort of being unfair?
NewCanaanVoter January 07, 2012 at 04:57 PM
@Luca And by the way, I was apparently correct originally, it was 16 trillion dollars: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/have-you-heard-about-the-16-trillion-dollar-bailout-the-federal-reserve-handed-to-the-too-big-to-fail-banks http://www.forbes.com/sites/traceygreenstein/2011/09/20/the-feds-16-trillion-bailouts-under-reported/ Looks like you're the tremendous liar now.
NewCanaanVoter January 07, 2012 at 05:18 PM
"Obama assassinates a US citizen overseas and the democrats say ''....... (nothing). Imagine if Bush had done that?" Really? NDAA has been at the top of the national news every day for 2+ months now. It's literally on the front page of reddit.com/r/politics as we speak. And Glenn Greenwald alone has probably written about the assassination/gitmo stories at least a hundred times in the past couple years, and these stories have been dominating both the blogosphere and twitter.
heavens sake January 07, 2012 at 08:07 PM
Agree the system is broken, but Luca and Tony would rather nitpick at each other --just like polititians are doing in Wash. We know they are all bright, but they are not focused on solutions, just trying to prove who is right or wrong. Waste of time and talent.
sebastian dangerfield January 08, 2012 at 04:56 AM
The problem is to determine what the problem is. The left has drank the Kool -Aid and believe that banks are the problem. Too bad they dont actually use their brains to figure out if what they say is logical. The truth is , there are many variables that led to the crash. But the number one reason was complacency. An attitude that the stock market always goes higher-and even more so--the real estate market could only go higher. All the derivatives and loans etc were all predicated on a rising housing market. Those that now accuse the banks of fraud and "knowingly duping investors oddly also talk about how taxpayers needed to bail out the banks. At the very least, they should understand the lack of logic they wish to perpetuate , despite their desire to point fingers. If the game was rigged, why did they need a bailout? And why are all the financial stocks still near their low, and perilously close to having more huge troubles? Because they knew that things were going down? If I knew the Saints were going to win by 17 tonight, I wouldnt bet on the Lions...but the tony's of this world want you to believe that the banks rigged the game in favor of the Saints, but bet on the Lions. Lots of businesses got hurt. Lots of people did. But the banks paid most or all of what they borrowed. The post office loses 10 bio a year. yet the left isnt attacking this inefficient bureacracy. And I wonder why? Is it just towing the democrat line? Special interests....uncool.
sebastian dangerfield January 08, 2012 at 05:09 AM
you see tony, if the banks had borrowed a bunch of money and then continued to owe that money but paid their executives out of control salaries...Id be right next to you--banging the drum. But they paid the money back. Who cares if money was offered to them, but they didnt take it? I look at what continues to go on--the smokescreen the left is creating in order to win elections. Public Unions, Private Unions, Social spending, entitlements. (the average social security receipient paid 305,000 into the system (social security and medicare) and receives 760,000 in benefits. Thats too large a discrepency). We have the Post Office, Pensions for public employees that guarantee outrageous returns. Yet the left creates noise about banks. Check out how much money the taxpayers paid to the blue collar workers at General Motors> Why isnt their resentment there? Its all demogoguery. --Banks owe us nothing--while we continue to spend trillions on "main street" and point at banks in order to justify the flooding the democrats constituency with money. its a travesty.
J Bauer January 08, 2012 at 02:42 PM
I was going to stay out of this messy argument, but then you have to try and support your side of it by pointing us to a the darling of occupy wall street, joe stiglitz? Really? I mean, you cannot come up with somene better than that? You might as well try to prove to us how great the Democratic party is by telling us to go and check out Debbie Shultz's web site or interviews. Step back now and try to think about why the Feds are adamant about not allowing bank failures and what the larger problems in the system are and stop crying about how unfair life is and how every banker is a thief.
heavens sake January 08, 2012 at 02:56 PM
Many recently published books are available. "This Time is Different", "Currency Wars" Gretchen Morgensons book as well as others pointing out how decisions were made during Lehman meltdown, Feds reluctance to fullfill regulatory role and Greenspans unfounded reliance on market forces. Also Kyle Bass, a hedge fund manager. on youtube offers facts and figures on why we are in trouble. But to read Luca,s offensive diatribe is pointless. Luca is obviosly not a fan of Ron Paul, not a liberal democrat, but so what. I would however agree with Luca that thru complacency many of those who made mistakes should bear the brunt of their mistakes. rather than being bailed out. And that gets us back to the irresponsible individual, the mortgage provider that failed in due diligence, banks and insurers who issued derivatives and CDS's thinking the sky is the limit, and the Fed that should have known better as confessed by Greenspan. We are all at fault in a sense, so let the change begin !
sebastian dangerfield January 08, 2012 at 04:29 PM
Heavens sake... Your conclusion is wrong. I'm a huge Ron Paul fan. Not sure why you think otherwise. I think the US politics has turned simply into a money pit for special interest groups and that both sides engage in demogoguery to try to manipulate the public. Democrats want desperately to give money to unions ...so they demonize bankers. ("bail out the rich! How about bailing out the poor main street "hard workers") Republicans use the "strong defense, strong military"...to justify defense spending and the money they receive from those companies. The whole anti gay, pro life stuff is pandering to another special interest faction.....and the rest of us are left holding the bill. Tony wants to carry the bag, spreading crap about trillions given to banks....yet the banks owe nothing. They pay taxes. Etc. I am advocating a truthful conversation. Where distortion ..untruths ..and a focus on what ails the country can claim focus. All the misrepresentations about how evil the banks are...is a repeat of Nazi politics. Singling out one group and demonizing them...protesting... It's a slippery slope..and my aim is to get facts in the debate rather than anger and lies.
heavens sake January 08, 2012 at 06:35 PM
Luca, I too am leaning more and more towards Ron Paul because at this point we really need change which other candidates are not offering. My comment regarding Ron Paul was spurred by his position that the Fed should be abolished, and is really an arm of big banks which you seem to be defending mightily. Many have suffered including bank stockholders, while bank executives have been rewarded for inventing more synthetic instruments that are not regulated properly and nearly caused a meltdown. As I said, everyone is probably to blame to some extent as we are all part of the system. However, it is time to reassess what works or what policies cause continued problems regardless of idiology. Some examples are trade policy, Glass Stiegel, Fed easy money policy ad infinatum, defense spending, energy development , industrial development and planning, role of multinationals in a global economy, entitlements , more uniform pensions , etc. Unfortunatly, idiology, party politics and need to be elected get in the way.
sebastian dangerfield January 09, 2012 at 04:45 AM
heavens sake-- Im not defending the fed. I simply am saying that this concept of 'secret loans" is a load of mularkey. The Fed was formed explicitly to loan money to banks. the term secret entered the fray, when the fed resisted publishing documents of all transactions conducted with member banks. I can understand the resistance. But ultimately a judge forced them to hand over 29,000 pages of documents. My point being --these were not secret loans. The fed does it every day--and was commissioned to do exactly this. The fact that they didnt disclose all transactions im sure was in keeping with the concept of finacial dealings by government as sometimes being less public. (closed door meetings). I disagree that synthetic intruments are not regulated properly. Its the default statement of those that dont understand the instruments-but they no more 'caused the collapse' than did the tens of thousands of private developers who took out loans to build speculative housing (because 'everyone knows real estate doesnt go down). Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Community Housing Act, disproportionate compensation for bankers that encouraged risk, easy money that encouraged enormous leverage. But CEO pay to me is more a reflection of the huge stock market gains. CEOS are often paid in stock. If bank stocks went from 8 dollars to 108 dollars the CEO got paid 13 times more. That didnt come out of the company's account. It was paid by the market. (continued)
sebastian dangerfield January 09, 2012 at 04:55 AM
There is a reason why most of the reports that examine CEO pay stop at year 2007. And that is because the stock market stopped going higher. The people wanting to show you how overpaid these guys are--somehow dont want to examine recent years. Why? It doesnt fit their agenda. Now I am not a proponent of the tens of millions these guys get. I dont think they probably deserve it. But I dont think its up to government to correct. Stiglitz. Stiglitz argues that there is too big an imbalance in the world. Duh. But what Tony Imbimbo etal are not willing to listen to in Freefall is the fact that we need to stop borrowing -- and stop spending. When the Democrats like Tony start listening to more than the verses in Stiglitz's book that call for regulation--and that they decide that borrowing more and more and spending is wrong (and not crazy . They like to portray tea partyers as crazy)--then Ill believe that Tony is for solutions. Not just carrying the democrats agenda. Unfortunately he is not. He is all about making sure that bankers are demonized...and more regulation is the answer. Why? Because that is what the party platform says.
sebastian dangerfield January 09, 2012 at 05:05 AM
By the way -stiglitz is not an obama fan. I wonder if getting rid of obama is a part of stiglitz's book that the democrats on this blog are ok with? Or just the enormous amounts of regulation he calls for? (after he called for deregulation in the mid 90's) then for regulation at the turn of the century after dotcom. Another feature of "freefall " is the concept that we are repeating the great depression--and he charts the course. But the recent recovery that we are seeing defy his predictions. He argued against the stimulus and the 'welfare for banks" etc. But his thesis seems to be failing. And even if we do end up moving down at some point--he thought we would never see any recovery--so once again--the guy is wrong.
sebastian dangerfield January 11, 2012 at 06:34 PM
The federal reserve turned over 76.9billion dollars in profits to the treasury last year. Just under the 78.9 billion it made in 2010. Evil banks. The fed contributing....and commercial banks that pay taxes! Pure evil. We should defend all the occupiers who pay no taxes. Sit on the ground instead of working . ( how many occupiers are immigrants? My guess....not that many. They are hard working people.). What the occupiers and the left want you to somehow believe is that people who work and pay taxes are sapping this country. That to sit around and do nothing, while receiving handouts is what we should be sympathetic and work towards. The Paul krugmans who advise enroll for tens of thousands or he gives speeches to bankers for 50k an hour then somehow weighs in on the evil rich. When the left portrays tea par tiers as crazy ( and yes some seem to be) they need to take a step back and analyze their logic. It's all based on lies , distortions, manipulations. The occupiers are 'upset' that the taxes they DIDNT PAY are not being fairly distributed. And the money the banks didn't borrow .could have made them money..but they need to distort to make it seem as though we gave it to them. Raise the level of intelligence in this debate. Think of what would make this country great. Incentivizing welfare....socialism, demotivating working....that is not where I want this country to go.
sebastian dangerfield January 11, 2012 at 06:44 PM
On this thread we read about how we need to provide affordable housing to "cops and teachers". Then on other threads we read that the towns biggest pay earners are cops (and then teachers). Are these arguers serious? Cops do a great job and put their life on the line we read to justify 200,000 incomes. Then days later they talk about how they are in need of affordable housing? Is there any honesty on the left?
heavens sake January 11, 2012 at 08:29 PM
Luca , you forgot to mention the lifeguards in California that earn $300,000 and bankers that earn much more than that not including bonuses. Wow, we are sure lucky the Fed turned over $76.9 billion over to the Treasury while our overall deficit rose to $15 Trillion. The whole system is out of whack ,but keep trying to rationalize it
sebastian dangerfield January 11, 2012 at 10:48 PM
heavens sake, I dont ever get what you are trying to say? lifeguards in california --thats the vanity fair article by michael lewis that suggests that our "public servants" and their pensions and salaries are going to bankrupt our towns- You might want to understand, by the way, the difference between deficit and debt. Im not rationalizing anything. Im just trying to get the conversation to a level of honesty. AIG will cost US taxpayers. General Motors will cost US taxpayers. JP MOrgan will not. Corrupt politicians will cost us money. Unions will cost us a lot of money. Liberal ideology --where we are guilted into some sort of ransom---will cost money. Im just simply asking that those same people who say "we need affordable housing for our hard working brave policemen" and then next day say "those cops who make 200k a year deserve it--" at least acknowledge the inanity of it all. Its not an honest way to argue. If you know the compensation level of cops--dont manipulate us by saying cops are the ones we are providing housing for. They are not. Is that fair?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »